Lured into a Ticket, to Earlier Owner?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by reactive

That's a problem. Other than common sense (it was on the street in daylight, that model of car has the VIN in the standard location, and a newly purchased car presumably isn't cluttered), the most damning evidence would be by way of a photograph of the VIN that I don't want to give to the bureau. I could include both the text and the article noting that many citations improperly omit the VIN.

HOWEVER, there is no requirement that the officer even get out and LOOK for the VIN. Let me make this clear to you: The lack of a VIN (alone) on your cite will NOT get it dismissed

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by reactive

The state's forms probably do not ask for the old plate number, meaning the associated information would be retrieved from out of state. I doubt the other state knows the vehicle was sold.

One can presume that the previous owner will contact the city or the state and tell them who they sold the car to so they can avoid the fines and associated collections fees.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by reactive

That's a problem. Other than common sense (it was on the street in daylight, that model of car has the VIN in the standard location, and a newly purchased car presumably isn't cluttered), the most damning evidence would be by way of a photograph of the VIN that I don't want to give to the bureau. I could include both the text and the article noting that many citations improperly omit the VIN.

It really doesn't matter what the article states, there is no LAW in California that REQUIRES the entire VIN be attached to a citation in any way, shape, or form.

It is not uncommon to omit the last four of the VIN on a parking citation because they can often not be read with any great accuracy. Of course, if you want to go in and argue that the parking cite is deficient on that account you are free to do so ... though it effectively means admitting to being parked at the location and receiving the citation. If your idea is to remain hidden because you believe the prior owner in another state cannot properly identify you, then identifying yourself to bring up a VIN issue is self destructive.

- Carl

[reactive]

No, not that the entire VIN is required, but the text quoted says the last four digits are required if visible. They were visible, despite what was claimed, and given that I'd argued that the ticket might go to the wrong person, he should have written down as much of the VIN as possible. I never said I'd include a name or any other means of identifying myself in the letter I plan to write. Also, I never said the previous owner wouldn't identify me - but if he were being hassled, I think he could easily end the citation altogether by proving he was out of state at the time and that that might be easier for him than to provide official documentation about me.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by reactive

No, not that the entire VIN is required, but the text quoted says the last four digits are required if visible. They were visible, despite what was claimed, and given that I'd argued that the ticket might go to the wrong person, he should have written down as much of the VIN as possible. I never said I'd include a name or any other means of identifying myself in the letter I plan to write. Also, I never said the previous owner wouldn't identify me - but if he were being hassled, I think he could easily end the citation altogether by proving he was out of state at the time and that that might be easier for him than to provide official documentation about me.

Proving the owner was out of state is not the issue, it's the fact that he is the responsible party for the vehicle. he might end up having an open collections account if he doesn't pay the fine or dime off the new owner - you.

But, that's all a civil issue for everyone involved. Hey, if you and the former owner want to gamble, knock yourselves out!

- Carl

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by reactive

No, not that the entire VIN is required, but the text quoted says the last four digits are required if visible. They were visible, despite what was claimed, and given that I'd argued that the ticket might go to the wrong person, he should have written down as much of the VIN as possible. I never said I'd include a name or any other means of identifying myself in the letter I plan to write. Also, I never said the previous owner wouldn't identify me - but if he were being hassled, I think he could easily end the citation altogether by proving he was out of state at the time and that that might be easier for him than to provide official documentation about me.

Could the ticket writer see it from his/her vantage point? If not, then it wasn't visible.

In MY city, they don't even get out of the car when they give tickets...so the VIN is NEVER visible to them

[reactive]

Do you live in California? If so, next time you get screwed over, complain about the law not being followed.

I looked at the car today. The last four digits are easy to read. When the guy was looking around the vehicle, he shouldn't have had any trouble getting the VIN. Maybe he was lazy.

I hope the letter works. If not, something will happen before fines mount.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by reactive

Do you live in California? If so, next time you get screwed over, complain about the law not being followed.

Yes, I've lived in So Cal for a LONG time...and nterestingly enough...I READ the signs where I park

ETA: You are just here for reaffirmation of your (mistaken) belief that the ticket is defective. You're not going to get that reaffirmation.